Quote from: blakkieWhat I, on the other hand,  got out of it was that it was combat and loot/gear was the thing that the rules actively supported and encouraged.  You can do other stuff, but you have to try make up your own rules, often ignoring or rewriting rules to do it.  Which is hit and miss, often more miss than hit.  For quality results it is usually best to craft a tool for the purpose instead of succuming to Hammer-In-Hand Disease and seeing everything as a nail.

Then you pretty much missed the point I'm afraid, it's very common for people to want the rules to handle stuff other than the bits that are most fun.  One of the key draws of early DnD to many people was precisely a lack of rules for roleplaying as that allowed freedom to roleplay.

You go wrong when you conflate supported and encouraged, what the rules support and what the rules encourage may have little to do with each other.  Some people like the rules to support the things the game is about, others want the rules not to support that but simply not to actively impede it.  Being in the former camp doesn't make the latter wrong (and of course vice versa).

Quote from: hgjsThat's my position as well: you can make rules that regulate the roleplaying part of roleplaying games, and some games do, but they invariable suck.

(Note: I have never read Pendragon, so I have no opinion as to its quality.)

Pendragon has great rules for this that work well, I have encountered many folk who don't actually like them but almost nobody who thinks they suck.

Dogs in the Vineyard has rules for this that aren't at all to my tastes, but that definitely don't suck.  They're well executed rules, I just don't enjoy them.

This whole thread is a bit odd to be honest.  Tons of games have rules for roleplaying, some do it well, some do it badly, but it's hardly a new concept.  Hell, alignment is basically a rule for roleplaying and you don't get much earlier in the hobby than when that came in.

Quote from: TonyLBSeems to me that both sides of this are putting forth theories but focussing on craft.  I think of the traditional "theorist/everyone-else" divide as being about whether people focus on theory as a worthy goal in and of itself ... and I just don't see anyone doing that here (including blakkie).  So I guess the way I think of the divide isn't the way you think of the divide.

Is the distinction you're making here that "us" includes people who agree with your theories and build their craft accordingly, and "Theorists" are people who have theories that disagree with yours and who build their craft accordingly?

I've no idea what pundit is trying to do, but blakkie did miss the point pretty badly.

These guys are coming from the perspective that says rules should get out of the way of the stuff that can be rewardingly roleplayed out.  That rules for roleplay entirely miss the point as that's where the fun is and not therefore where you want rules.  On this view, rules are to a degree a necessary evil, something we need because we can't just roleplay out everything.

This is a real split in the hobby.  Some folk like rules to support what play is about, some people see that as needless intrusion and a fetter on what play can be about.

For one group, DnD is about hacking and slaying as that is what it has rules for.  For the other, DnD can be about anything because it doesn't have rules for more stuff.  For one the absence of rules is a handicap, for the other a liberation.

Blakkie missed the point that many people who play DnD see the absence of roleplaying rules as liberating, as allowing them to play anything.  Until one can recognise that preference (even if one doesn't remotely share it) then it is effectively impossible to communicate.

I've seen it on rpg.net tons of times.  I talk say about running an ODnD game and someone assumes that therefore I want hack and slay as that is all the rules cover, but that assumption is flawed.  Until I give more information the rules of themselves give you no clue as to what I want to run, because that part of the game is dealt with outside the rules.

I think Balbinus is totally correct.

IAWTC

"What is the sound of nothing, Grasshopper?"

"Freedom, Master?"

"Correct! Fetch me my opium pipe."

Quote from: BalbinusI've no idea what pundit is trying to do, but blakkie did miss the point pretty badly.

I'm cool with that.  But it doesn't look (to me) like he missed the point because he's a Theorist.  It looks like he missed the point through reasonable misapplication of his own hard-won experience.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm cool with that.  But it doesn't look (to me) like he missed the point because he's a Theorist.  It looks like he missed the point through reasonable misapplication of his own hard-won experience.

Yeah, I have no idea to be honest if he's a theorist or not, and either way I don't see it as linked to this issue.

But random sideswipes against theorists are part of the site I figure.  If you'd borrowed money from me and not returned it I would say something like "that TonyLB is such a theorist, he still owes me that $20".

Quote from: RPGPunditSorry, dude but your answers plant you firmly in the camp of the "Theorists", and not over here with "the rest of us".  

You seem to be confused about "the rest of us". Napoleon.

QuoteThe essence of your answer is basically what I was talking about above.

So what, you were intentionally misrepresenting the "Theorists"? Because what I said and what you claimed to be the stance of "Theorists" were a damn sight different.

QuoteYou fundamentally feel that a game's rules define what can be done with an RPG, and that everything has to be regulated and codified in order to be significant in an RPG.

You certainly are trying to put words in my mouth. Because this is NOT what I said.

Quote from: BalbinusI've no idea what pundit is trying to do, but blakkie did miss the point pretty badly.

I think you missed my point. To put it clearer:  RPGPundit is a swine crying out "Four legs good. Two legs better!" :pundit:

Quote from: blakkieI think you missed my point. To put it clearer:  RPGPundit is a swine crying out "Four legs good. Two legs better!" :pundit:

I did miss your point, we are both as blind men struggling to describe the elephant while Pundit prods it with a sharp stick hoping it will trample us.

Edit:  But I do honestly think also that you missed the point on how many rpgs are played.

Quote from: blakkieI think you missed my point. To put it clearer:  RPGPundit is a swine crying out "Four legs good. Two legs better!" :pundit:

I'm with RPGPundit on this.

You're with solidly with the Forge theorists on this point, and lack a good conceptual grasp of how traditional RPGs can be played.

Quote from: BalbinusI did miss your point, we are both as blind men struggling to describe the elephant while Pundit prods it with a sharp stick hoping it will trample us.

:win:

QuoteYou're with solidly with the Forge theorists on this point, and lack a good conceptual grasp of how traditional RPGs can be played.

Really?  Are you saying there wasn't actual rules at the gaming table in the old days. Maybe it's just my foggy memory but I remember there being a lot of them. Just most of them weren't written down in the book, or at all.  They were largely in the DM's head and come out is tidbits here and there, and as such tended to suffer from distortion and incompleteness and other problems associated with that medium.  Occationally a DM would have some sort of document on house rules, some much thicker than others, but of the ones I saw they largely ignored character social abilities as well with little more than an occational bone tossed that way.

Quote from: blakkie:win:

Really?  Are you saying there wasn't actual rules at the gaming table in the old days.

I'm saying that your response was almost word-for-word the gribberish that comes out of the Forge, down to the "miss more than hit" backhand.

Quote from: gleichmanI'm saying that your response was almost word-for-word the gribberish that comes out of the Forge,

Well then RPGPundit was certainly misrepresenting what "The Forge" says, because my gribberish doesn't match up with what he said.

Also I take that you DON'T disagree with my assessment that there were a crapload of rules?  So what part of "traditional" RPGs do I not have a good conceptual grasp on then?

Quotedown to the "miss more than hit" backhand.

Calling 'em as I've seen 'em.  And I've seen a lot 'em.

Basically creating usable rules is hard.  Given the struggle in the beginning just to get combat rules that were usable it isn't surprising that social rules were just kinda tossed out there as "you figure it out".  But over time people, and I'm talking collectively, have learned how to make better combat rules (for different applications). So now more attention is being put on how to make social rules that are fun and enjoyable.

So I say bully for people trying to do that, and boo to the swine that piss on people for taking the time to reflect on how games are actually played.

Quote from: blakkieBasically creating usable rules is hard.  Given the struggle in the beginning just to get combat rules that were usable it isn't surprising that social rules were just kinda tossed out there as "you figure it out".  But over time people, and I'm talking collectively, have learned how to make better combat rules (for different applications). So now more attention is being put on how to make social rules that are fun and enjoyable.

You really think that?

Honestly, I've never seen the creation of a mechanic as a difficult thing.  Once you had the basic concept of how the mechanic works solved (pools, roll one die high, roll one die low, roll many dice and add together, roll many dice and pick the highest, spin the wheel, pick a card, etc.) it all falls into place pretty easily.

Even when it comes to social rules, you can simmer most of it down to 5-6 basic concepts (and their reverse) thus giving you a good basis for modification.  

The hard part for me is creating rules to allow someone else to create rules.  The meta-rules are the harder part.